It is NOT just oil-very very long post

[hcap]

Well here is my response to everyone responding on the " Maybe it is about oil?" thread.

I used many sources. Not all are cited
Url's are available

If you have read the articles I posted about oil and the dollar and euro and you can get through THIS, you will understand why we are protesting.

Have anyone actually read the articles
about the euro I posted?

Dave? JustRalph? Boris, Tom?

My point was to counter The Heritage Foundation article with information.
And to question the motives of our hawkish administration. And point out the larger issues about "liberating Iraq".

Ok, here’s some more larger issues.

Ok, its NOT JUST about oil.

It is also and more so about EMPIRE. Many of the “advisors” and top folks in this administration
are strongly connected tp the PNAC-more about them later..Here are the main reasons we will
invade Iraq.

1-Idealism: remaking the world in what the true believers see as America's image, with free enterprise and Judeo-Christianity as core elements. Former official, Reagan Michael Ledeen, now at the American Enterprise Institute (one of the leading drum-beaters for attacking Iraq):

"If we just let our own vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to be clever and piece together clever diplomatic solutions to this thing, but just wage a total war against these tyrants, I think we will do very well, and our children will sing great songs about us years from now." Oil: the sine qua non of Middle East policy, yesterday, today and tomorrow. To be in full control of Iraq's vast reserves, with Saudi oil and Iranian oil waiting defenselessly next door; OPEC will be stripped of its independence from Washington and will no longer think about replacing the dollar with the Euro as its official currency; oil-dependent Europe may think twice

2)-Israel
The men driving Bush to war include long-time militant supporters of Israel, such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith, who, along with the rest of the powerful Israeli lobby, have advocated smashing Iraq for years.

From the Drudge Report
In this week's AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, editor Pat Buchanan issues a controversial, 5000-word indictment of the 'War Party' of Bennett, Kristol, Podhoretz and Richard Perle.
The magazine will hit newsstands and bookstores tomorrow. With quotes and citations, Buchanan alleges:

# 'War Party' ideas and plans for an attack on Iraq had been 'in preparation far in advance of 9/11, and when President Bush was looking for a new front,' the neocons 'put their precooked meal in front of him. And Bush dug into it.'

# Richard Perle wrote a paper urging Israeli PM Netanyahu to dump the Oslo Peace Accords and target Iraq -- five years before 9/11.

# Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith urged Israel to ditch the Oslo and take back the West Bank though 'the price in blood would be high,' three years before the Camp David talks.

# Pentagon official David Wurmser urged the U.S. to act in concert with Israel to 'strike fatally...the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran and Gaza' -- nine months before 9/11.

# Bennett, Kristol, Podhoretz 'seized on the horrific atrocity [of September 11] to steer America¹s rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic Œrogue states that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.'

# The neocon vision is 'to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel....[They] seek American empire and the Sharonites seem hegemony over the Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely.'

# Buchanan charges Max Boot of the WSJ and Lawrence Kaplan of New Republic with 'playing the anti-Semitic card....to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives.'



3)-Globalization: After the war the transnational corporations will march into Iraq ready to privatize everything at fire-sale prices, followed closely by the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization and the rest of the international financial extortionists.

4)-Arms industry: As with each of America's wars, military manufacturers will rake in exorbitant profits, then deliver their generous political contributions, inspiring Washington leaders to yet further warfare.
By the way, our mainstream media outlets are for the most part wholly owned subsidiaries of large gov contractors.(i.e. GE-NBC,MSNBC) And there are interlocking seats on the boards of directors of the media outlets connecting extensively with arms, and pharmaceuticals as well as other huge gov contractors and lobbyists. Do you think we are getting all the news, or are we spun in the direction of the multinationals interests?.

When Bush gave his second prime-time press conference in two years (on 6 March 2003), in a flustered moment, he admitted that the production was "scripted." But in transcripts of the event, all media outlets, except one, have changed or removed that embarassing moment.

It happened when Bush was looking down at his notes to see which reporter he was supposed to call upon. The following excerpt is from the official transcript at the White House's Website:

“The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentle soul, the risk that somehow -- that inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to take for the American people.

We'll be there in a minute. King, John King. This is a scripted” -- (laughter.)

continued---

[hcap]

Continued

The PNAC ta da

THE PNAC- the Project for the New American Century

On 28 Jan 1998 the PNAC project team wrote to President Clinton demanding a radical change in dealings with the UN and the end of Saddam.

While it was not clear whether Saddam was developing WMD, he was, they said, a threat to the US, Israel, the Arab States and "a meaningful part of the world's oil reserves". They put their case as follows:
“In the short term this means being ready to lead military action, without regard for diplomacy. In the long term it means disarming Saddam and his regime. We believe that the US has the right under existing Security Council resolutions to take the necessary steps, including war, to secure our vital interests in the Gulf. In no circumstances should America's politics be crippled by the misguided insistence of the Security Council on unanimity."

These signatories are today all part of the Bush Administration. They are Dick Cheney - Vice President, Lewis Libby - Cheney's Chief of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld - Defence Minister, Paul Wolfowitz -

Rumsfeld's deputy, Peter Rodman - in charge of 'Matters of Global Security', John Bolton - State Secretary for Arms Control, Richard Armitage - Deputy Foreign Minister, Richard Perle - former Deputy Defence Minister under Reagan, now head of the Defense Policy Board, William Kristol - head of the PNAC and adviser to Bush, known as the brains of the President, Zalmay Khalilzad - fresh from being special ambassador and kingmaker in Afghanistan, now Bush's special ambassador to the Iraqi opposition.

But even before that - over ten years ago - two hardliners from this group had developed a defense proposal that created a global scandal when it was leaked to the US press. The suggestion that was revealed in 1992 in The New York Times was developed by two men who today are Cabinet members - Wolfowitz and Libby. It essentially argued that the doctrine of deterrence used in the Cold War should be replaced by a new global strategy.

Its goal was the enduring preservation of the superpower status of the US - over Europe, Russia and China. Various means were proposed to deter potential rivals from questioning America's leadership or playing a larger regional or global role. The paper caused major concerns in the capitals of Europe and Asia.

But the critical thing, according to the Wolfowitz-Libby paper, was complete American dominance of Eurasia. Any nation there that threatened the USA by acquiring WMD should face pre-emptive attack, they said. Traditional alliances should be replaced by ad-hoc coalitions
This 1992 masterplan then formed the basis of a PNAC paper that was concluded in September 2000, just months before the start of the Bush Administration.

That September 2000 paper (Rebuilding America's Defenses) was developed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby, and is devoted to matters of "maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests". (RAD)

Amongst other things, this paper said, the USA must re-arm and build a missile shield in order to put itself in a position to fight numerous wars simultaneously and chart its own course. Whatever happened, the Gulf would have to be in US control:

"The US has sought for years to play an ongoing role in the security architecture of the Gulf. The unresolved conflict with Iraq provides a clear basis for our presence, but quite independent of the issue of the Iraqi regime, a substantial US presence in the Gulf is needed."
Just six days after 11 September, Bush signed an order to prepare for war against the terror network and the Taliban. Another order went to the military, that was secret initially, instructing them to develop scenarios for a war in Iraq.

In mid February, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd (at 86 years of age the so-called "Father of the Senate") spoke out.
The longest serving member of that Chamber warned the pre-emptive war that the Right were advocating was a "distortion of long-standing concepts of the right of self-defence" and "a blow against international law". Bush's politics, he said "could well be a turning point in world history" and "lay the foundation for anti-Americanism" across much of the world.
ABC-TV's Ted Koppel Nightline program recently discussed reports that Bush has been influenced by the Project for the New American Century, which proposes that the United States assume military control of the Gulf region.

continued

[hcap]

Now lets talk about some consequences if we invade (looks like a done deal).

A newly-obtained confidential UN document predicts that 30 percent of children under 5 in Iraq, or 1.26 million, "would be at risk of death from malnutrition" in the event of a war. The draft document, "Integrated Humanitarian Contingency Plan for Iraq and Neighbouring Countries", was produced by the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) on 7 January 2003.
UNHCR estimates that up to 1.45 million refugees and asylum-seekers may seek to flee Iraq in the event of a military conflict" [p. 9(11)]
"Up to 900,000 people may be displaced in addition to the 900,000-1,100,000 existing IDPs [internally displaced persons]" [p. 10(12)]
* [from tables on p. 12(14)]
5,210,000 are highly vulnerable children under five and pregnant and lactating women.
500,000 potential direct and indirect casualties (overall population).
3,020,000 at nutritional risk (overall population).
18,240,000 might need access to treated water.
8,710,000 may need sanitation facilities.

From Senator Byrd

“Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military
manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?”

Can we trust Powell?
Maybe but -----

“I would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed . . . which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.”

Powell was referring to "Iraq Its Infrastructure Of Concealment, Deception And Intimidation", published on January 30, 2003. The Downing Street authors state they drew "upon a number of sources, including intelligence material" (p.1, first sentence). In fact, they copied material from at least three different authors and gave no credit to them. Indeed, they plagiarized, directly cutting and pasting or near quoting.

The information presented as being an accurate statement of the current state of Iraq's security organisations may not be anything of the sort.
Marashi - the real and unwitting author of much of the document has as his primary source the documents captured in 1991 for the Iraq Research and Documentation Project. His own focus is the activities of Iraq's intelligence agencies in Kuwait, Aug90-Jan91 - this is the subject of his thesis. As a result, the information presented as relevant to how Iraqi agencies are currently engaged with Unmovic is 12 years old.



Are people who protest unpatriotic?. And are they giving comfort to the enemy?
Lefty?
Well------

By Veterans For Common Sense
March 11, 2003

The following letter excerpt was signed by 1,000 war veterans and given to the President on March 10, 2003.

March 10, 2003

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

“We, the undersigned veterans who have served our country in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the 1991 Gulf War and other military conflicts, respectfully request an opportunity to meet with you about the threat of war between the United States and Iraq.

Mr. President, we are patriotic citizens and veterans who respect the office of the President and the ethics and values binding us together as Americans.

As such, we feel duty-bound to share with you our serious concerns regarding issues of national security, the appropriate use of our military strength, and the health and welfare of our active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Those of us who are veterans of the 1991 Gulf War can offer particular insight into the ongoing troubles in the Middle East, and the likely consequences of another war in that volatile region.”

And------

“Our concerns about the potential human and material costs of a military conflict in Iraq are well substantiated. In the event of a war, the UN warns that 1.26 million children under the age of five in Iraq will be at risk of death. Within the initial weeks of conflict, the World Health Organization estimates 500,000 Iraqis would need immediate medical attention. Ten million Iraqis would need immediate humanitarian assistance and over two million Iraqis would be made homeless.

The scale of the crisis would be so large that the international community would be unable to prevent widespread suffering. For these reasons and more, it remains in our nation's best interest to avoid another war. The risk of excessive civilian casualties like those predicted by the UN pose a grave risk to our national security, making the U.S. more of a target of retaliatory attacks”
by terrorists.
Sincerely,
Vice Admiral Ralph Weymouth, USN, Retired
Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, USN, Retired
Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA, Retired
Colonel David H. Hackworth, USA, Retired
Colonel Larry Williams, USMC, Retired
Colonel James E Unterseher, USA, Retired
Colonel James B. Burkholder, USA, Retired
Colonel Roger F. Strand, USAF, Retired
Colonel Virginia A. Metcalf, USA, Retired
Colonel Mary H. Yeakel, USA, Retired
Colonel Henrik O. Lunde, USA, Retired
Colonel Bruce S. Jarstfer, USA, Retired
Colonel Thomas Patrick Chisholm, USA, Retired
Colonel James Steven Chandler, USA
Colonel James J. Kent, USA, Retired
Colonel Grace E. Squires, USA, Retired
Colonel Carol Anne O‚Donnell, USA, Retired
Captain Kris Kristofferson, USA, Retired
Captain Thomas C. Tindall Jr., USNR, Retired
Captain Herbert A. Blough, USN, Retired
Captain M. David Preston, USCG

Finally,(whew!)

Poppy Bush is famous for having said, "The American lifestyle is not negotiable."
When the administration's people say American involvement in Iraq is "not about oil," they're often responding to charges that they're only going after profits for American oil companies. They speak truth, in that context, when they say the war isn't about revenues from oil - the profits will only be a desirable side-effect. What the war is really about is the survival of the American lifestyle, which, in their world-view, is both non-negotiable and based almost entirely on access to cheap oil.
Saudi Arabia has about 259 billion barrels and Iraq is estimated by the US Government to have 432 billion barrels, although at the moment only about 112 billion barrels have been tapped. The rest, virgin oil, can be pumped out for as little as $1.50 a barrel, making Iraqi oil not only the most abundant in the world, but the most profitable.

Our "lifestyle" - our ability to maintain our auto-based transportation systems, our demand for big, warm houses, and our appetite for a wide variety of cheap foods and consumer goods - is currently based on access to cheap oil. If we assume that the American people won't tolerate a change in that lifestyle, then we can extrapolate that our very security as a stable democracy is dependent on cheap oil.
Viewed in this context, the rush to seize control of the Middle East - where about a third of the planet's oil is located - makes perfect sense. It's a noble endeavor, in that view, maintaining the strength and vitality of the American Empire.

Osama bin Laden, for example, explicitly said that he had attacked the US because we had troops stationed on the holy soil of his homeland - a position not that different from Northern Irish, Palestinian, Tamil, and Kashmiri terrorists.

And our troops are there to protect our access to Saudi oil !!!

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by hcap

When Bush gave his second prime-time press conference in two years (on 6 March 2003), in a flustered moment, he admitted that the production was "scripted." But in transcripts of the event, all media outlets, except one, have changed or removed that embarassing moment.

It happened when Bush was looking down at his notes to see which reporter he was supposed to call upon. The following excerpt is from the official transcript at the White House's Website:

“The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentle soul, the risk that somehow -- that inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to take for the American people.

We'll be there in a minute. King, John King. This is a scripted” -- (laughter.)

Ok, first of all when you try to make a point, you get an "A" for effort. You should thank god for "OLE" and microsoft programmers. I read almost all of your posts. I find a bunch of things to argue about, but alas, Why? I am not going to change your mind. I will argue the part quoted above. 3 different news organizations came out today and denied these reports. Some idiot on the nypress web site made this allegation. Fox and ABC went as far as to explain that Bush was looking at a seating chart with the reporters names on it. He was in charge of who he was going to call on and was using the chart to get the names right. At least that is what I heard on ABC radio today. Fox basically said the same thing. He made a joke out of the situation because someone had suggested before the press conference that all the questions were pre-approved by the White House. That is why the reporters laughed. Believe what you want. Again, good effort.

edited: BTW, I haven't read the Nypress for a while. I am not sure which writer made the allegation, but the NYpress isn't all bad. They have some decent writers onboard. Go over and Read Russ Smith aka "Mugger". Interesting guy.

[Boris]

Hcap

Ditto to Ralph's comments. A+. I respect the passion of your position while I think we will disagree. Honestly, I don't have the patience of you to respond in full. More honestly, I don't have the interest. Safe to say, we have both made up our minds.

I did read some of your details from the previous post, but not all. Instinctively, I feel proceeding is the best of several bad choices. The numbers you cite from the UN report I take with a grain of salt. I'll leave my opinions of the UN out of this, but where's the "versus what"? 3,020,000 at nutritional risk (overall population) versus what? The conditions they live under now? I think we can agree that fighting our own civil war to end salvery was a good and proper fight, but I imagine many black slaves were put at nutritional risk. Many were displaced, some were direct casualties, some were indirect casualties, and a few were lactating, but I doubt many regretted the battles that led to their freedom. Even the current version of Senator Byrd would agree. "We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth." As he has found out in his life, you need to re-evaluate your friends from time to time.

From here on, I'll pray for the safety of our troops in the theater and their families.

[Lefty]

Unfortunately, in War, people get killed. When we dropped the A-bombs on Japan thousands were killed, thousands were maimed. It was horrible. But we ultimately saved many more lives, Japanese and American, in the long run, than were sacrificed.
Japan is free today and our freedom remains intact. Thank God Truman had the "balls" to do what had to be done. Now we fast forward to now. When we are threatened we must respond.
The libs can distort the news and quote all the conspiracy groups they want(I remember when it was the Trilateralists who werre trying to "rule the worlf")but our leaders must do what is necessary to keep America safe.

[hcap]

Ralph and Boris

Thanks for the A+, and I do appreciate your thoughtful opposition.

Ralph

Whatever the interpretation by ABC and
Fox, the "official" transcript provided to the media by eMediaMillWorks Inc., was accidentaly or purposely altered.
The same reporters who attended the conference never bothered to make any corrections to the faulty transcript. (At least I havn't seen any)

That is the problem.

Check this out

http://www.thememoryhole.org/media/scripted-scrub.htm

Boris

Even if the UN figs are exagerated, there are other sources as well, indicating a human catastrophe-mostly affecting children.

With this and the other consequences of this war, all that is possible should be done.

Maybe 10,000 inspectors and
some military presence in the region would be an alternative. If Dubya had the creativity and the willingness to back down, he could save face and still disarm Iraq. Could Iraq pull anything with 10,000 inspectors. I don't think anything significant. Especially if backed up by some sort of multinational armed force. Would the UN and the rest of the world buy it? A hell of a lot sooner then what we are doing now.

The judgement of this administration is fair game. The problem is trust, more than anything else.

[JustRalph]

I received email this morning from NY Press asking if they could print a letter I wrote about how the article on Bush having a scripted press conference was a joke. I agreed. I then received an email from the former owner of the paper who sold the paper a few months ago, and still writes for them. He described the article about Bush's "scripted press conference" as
"ridiculous and without basis" and apparently that is the way the article is being received by those in the know. Believe what you want. Again, you did get me to read the stuff. "A" for effort.

:cool:

[Boris]

"Even if the UN figs are exagerated, there are other sources as well, indicating a human catastrophe-mostly affecting children."

It is already a human catastrophe. Even if you want to call the "gassing his own people" friendly fire, the human rights violations are gross. What you don't want to happen is already happening.

"With this and the other consequences of this war, all that is possible should be done. "

Agreed. I don't believe, and I would think you will agree, that American soliders will not target civilans. We go out of our way to avoid them.

"Maybe 10,000 inspectors and some military presence in the region would be an alternative. If Dubya had the creativity and the willingness to back down, he could save face and still disarm Iraq. Could Iraq pull anything with 10,000 inspectors. I don't think anything significant. Especially if backed up by some sort of multinational armed force. Would the UN and the rest of the world buy it? A hell of a lot sooner then what we are doing now. "

We're too far apart to even debate this. I'm not interested in drawing another line in the sand. He's step over enough of them. Absolutely he could pull something. Prison didn't stop Al Capone. And I doubt there is much we can do to please the socialist countries of the world, except become socialist. Screw em. There are people on our side in this.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Lefty
Unfortunately, in War, people get killed. When we dropped the A-bombs on Japan thousands were killed, thousands were maimed. It was horrible. ....

And it was absolutely the right thing to do, and in spite any revisionist history the clinton-hipcorasy tried to dump on us, the US has nothing at all to apologize for. The japs attacked us like cowards and they paid the price. And anyone else who tries should get the same thing. If I disagree with anything the US did in the 1940's it was to rebuild Japan-we should have left it for dead, or colonized it. Same with Germany. Look at them today, they just continue to grow up bad.